tangerine1

<p>Since I'm an amateur photographer, I will only refer to <em>free</em> photography (excluding assignments, paid jobs, etc. - which severely limit one's freedom of choice).<br>

Remember the Rorschach tests? You are shown some nonfigurative images and you say what you make of them. I think photography is quite similar: you are shown some "raw reality" from which you extract what is the most meaningfull to <em>you at that time</em> , applying you cultural persona and/or your temporary mood. Thus, two pictures taken by you in the same place at different moments in time can be quite different due to environment changes (obviously), but mostly due to a different mood and even to your cultural evolution. However, you are essentially the same person and if you look at the pictures you've taken over a large period of time, your "style" emerges. I think one's <em>style</em> is one's "cultural filter" - assuming there are no external limitations regarding subjects, approach etc. - i.e. one's likes/dislikes, fears, expectations, education, social involvment, etc., etc.<br>

It's almost like chess (which I also love): few simple rules, endless possibilities. But there's always <em>you</em> making the strategy or taking the picture.<br>

So IMHO each and every photographer <em>has</em> a style. It only takes a trained professional to read our "Rorschach tests".</p>

<p>The links (as all your content) in www.michellefrankfurter.com are embedded in a Flash and cannot be edited like regular (html) links. Just ask your Flash designer to change the link.<br>

P.S. Looking at your page source, I can see a lot of text (which is good for SEO), but also your email address, which will be "harvested" by bots and will generate a lot of spam. My advice is to ask your webdesigner for a contact form.</p>

<p>I think it would be nice to have one additional info for each comment made on portfolios: the number of photographs in the portfolio at the moment when that comment was made.<br>

This could help put things in perspective (kind of show the evolution of the respective portfolio).<br>

I doubt this info could be added retroactively, but maybe from now on.</p>

<p>In my opinion (I'm the one who came up with this idea), this wouldn't be an <em>elite</em> group (how could one define "elite" in this context?), but just a group of photographers wanting to give and receive honest critiques on their less-than-brilliant pictures (or experiments) for the sake of learning and improving. Because this kind of pictures is exactly the one getting no (or very few) critiques.<br>

Therefore, "a bad photographer who hardly knows what he's talking about" would be wellcome. A "bad photographer" is at least a viewer of those pictures (i.e. part of the target audience) and could have pertinent comments/critiques, for pictures are meant to be seen not just by <em>elites</em> . Also, "a bad photographer" would hopefully have many opportunities to learn from other critiques within such a group.<br>

So there's only one condition: honesty. (And civility, of course, but this goes without saying.)<br>

Re "a bad photographer who hardly knows what he's talking about": I honestly believe this includes most of us. We live and learn. When we stop learning, the end is near.</p>

<p>What happened to old fashioned <em>realistic</em> photography? Nowadays, more and more pictures are "visions" and dream-like - heavily post-processed, mimicking painting.<br>

Is it because "simple" photography has become obsolete? Is it because post-processing/editing has become relatively easy for everybody? Is it because men allways want to see out-of-the-ordinary?</p>

 

<p>@ Bob Kothenbeutel: Since you specialize in birds, I think it will be both tougher and easier for you to get critiques and (good) ratings on Photo.net.<br>

<em>Tougher</em> because some people might not have developped a taste for bird photography (and might not really appreciate its difficulty and the passion and patience it requires). This could explain any below average ratings you might have got.<br>

But also <em>easier</em> because there are quite a number of photographers on Photo.net who share your passion for birds. Just commenting on their pictures as an adept of birds photography could help form a group etc. Or is this just wishfull thinking on my part?<br>

@ Tim Zeipekis: Your "Curves" is among my favorite pictures on Photo.net. Yet I haven't commented on it. Go figure :)</p>

<p>Talking about critiques: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Excelente+imagen+de+gran+belleza,+magn%C3%ADfica+luz%22+site:photo.net&start=0&sa=N&filter=0<br>

I don't get it. Over 7,000 <em>template generated</em> critiques - for what? Is there a prize that I should know about?<br>

Puzzled.</p>

<p>Holger Stelljes: "I too sometimes feel that I have to reciprocate when someone rates or comments, but that is the courteous thing to do."<br>

Reciprocating with a comment/critique is something I do often. But I have a problem with rates. I wish I could comment on my own behalf, but rate (the same picture) annonymously. If I rate an honest 6/6, would the author feel somehow obligated to reciprocate a 6/6 to one of my pictures (which may not be that good)? I really wouldn't like that. This is why sometimes I just comment without rating.</p>

<p>Mark Chartrand: "I would be willing to critique photographs where the main subject is people. I do that now and enjoy it because I get to choose which photographs I wish to critique."<br /> I don't see any problem here. I fact, I think it would be nice to have some people "specializing" in one area or another.<br /> <br /> Mark Chartrand: "I'm not sure I like the idea of feeling obligated to critique all photographs or be told which photographs of the "group" to critique."<br /> Any obligation would defeat the purpose. Not "all photographs", of course, but the more the better. No one would be told wich photograph to critique, but *all* photographs announced to the group would - by the very definition of such a group - be *open to any critique*.<br /> <br /> Sumon Mukherjee: "Photo.Net is a very good place for learning photography through the interactions with other members."<br /> I couldn't agree more. We have a common ground here.<br /> <br /> Sumon Mukherjee: "Find out some good photographs, recently posted for critique, and put your honest comments on them."<br /> My point exactly :) It's relatively easy to do that - and I've been doing it. "Find out some good photographs..." - and all the rest will get no critiques. My problem is that I wouldn't like to be *at the receiving end* of such a "policy". <br /> <br /> Sumon Mukherjee: "As Josh has already mentioned, it’s very difficult to absorb really harsh and honest critique. “No-ego”- group is a utopia."<br /> Really harsh and honest critiques seem to be avoided just because they're difficult to absorb. And that is likely to - among others - discourage experiments.<br /> I was part of a "no-ego" group of sci-fi translators back in the 80's, and harsh (and honest) critiques helped me grow tremendously. Nobody told me "you're stupid", they just pointed out ALL my errors/inaccuracies and provided suggestions. I remember my rookie period: I used to blush every couple of minutes - but man, what a huge help!<br /> Now, back to our pictures and critiques: I feel I can take just about any critique, no matter how harsh, for the sake of improving my photography. Anybody else interested in joining such a "club"? That's what I'm talking about. It doesn't have to be like 80% of the Photo.net members. I would be happy with 20 or so honest people.<br /> <br /> Sumon Mukherjee: "Read carefully the experts’ critiques on other members’ photographs and try to learn from those comments."<br /> Good point - and I've been doing that. But that's being rather selfish. <br /> <br /> Sumon Mukherjee: "Try to put some thoughtful critiques on expert photographers’ photographs."<br /> Tough one. Some pictures seem to be way beyond my league and I could only express my admiration. Not just any physicist can aptly comment on Niels Bohr's work :)<br /> <br /> Anthea Scotte: "Happily for me though, through that process I found some people here on PN who will often comment honestly on my photos, as I do on theirs. Out of those, I also now have a PN critique ‘buddy’. We exchange emails and ask for critiques that way, not through the forum, although sometimes my buddy will ask me to look at some new technique he’s trying and give my thoughts and impressions as a ‘heads up’ before he posts the image."<br /> And what about having *a couple dozens* of critique 'buddies'? But with pictures posted to Photo.net and only *announced* to the 'buddies' via, e.g., a Yahoo Group.<br /> <br /> Anthea Scotte: "So I’m really puzzled as to why you haven’t come across anyone who could be a critique buddy."<br /> Got me here :) I must admit that patience is not my strongest virtue. I understand it's a matter of time, but why not give it a push?<br /> <br /> Anthea Scotte: "I don’t critique sports/fashion/street/landscapes usually..." and "My interest is mainly in macro images (although not all nature/bugs either) and abstracts."<br /> That's perfect. Your could write two kinds of critique: for macro/abstracts as an adept and for sports/fashion/street/landscapes as a simple (yet knowledgeable) viewer. You just promise to be honest :)<br /> <br /> David McCracken: "And Val has rated 356 photographs and commented on 43. Perhaps practising what you preach would be a good starting point!"<br /> I just don't dare writing critiques for pictures I would rate below 5/5. Simply rating is the least I can do (safely i.e. annonymously) when I'm not in the mood (or too tired) to write critiques, yet stil willing to give something back to the community. Not much, I know.</p>

<p>Tim,<br>

I have felt the same frustration with some pictures, but then I also received a great suggestion within a critique that helped me improve that picture a lot.<br>

My impression is that there are many photographers here willing - and competent! - to write usefull critiques, but they can be reluctant sometimes.<br>

Let's try forming a small hard-core no-ego group, and see how it works.</p>

<p>I'm not going to rant about bad ratings and/or not getting enough critiques. But I'm gonna try and do something about it.<br /> <br /> Here is what I might call "my problem", and the solution I'm proposing:<br /> <br /> A. My problem<br /> Sometimes, a picture of mine gets an annonymous 3/3 rating without critique. Useless - and confusing. <br /> High ratings with short comments like "great picture" are also useless to me (but, hey, at least I'm flattered). I can almost hear that person thinking: "Keep up the sh*t work, but could you please reciprocate my 6/6 rating".<br /> Obviously I'm interested in critiques, and no rating could replace that, because I want to learn and improve.<br /> Of course I'm willing to write critiques to other people's photographs, but sometimes I find myself reluctant to write a harsh critique, not knowing whether I'll end up hurting the photographer's feelings. Ironically, I think that photographs that qualify for harsh critiques are exactly the ones that could help their respective authors learn the most, but these are exactly the ones getting the least critiques if any. <br /> <br /> B. My solution<br /> I wish I could join a group of people willing to give and/or receive extensive critiques, *no matter how harsh* as long as they are honest, in good faith and constructive. A group of people who would also like to request critiques for their experimental photographs in order to learn and improve, not just seek recognition for their best pictures. <br /> <br /> I'm thinking of a mailing list for announcements of critique requests made on Photo.net, whose members would form an "alliance" of people willing to receive harsh critiques - within certain common sense limits. Would anybody be interested in joining such a group?</p>

 

<p>I think there are two kinds of photographs: taken and made. A snap is obviously of the <em>taken</em> variety and it's impact (degree of interest) on viewers depends on your ability to convey what you felt when you took it - cause you must have felt some emotion that compelled you to take that picture.<br>

Now, what you felt might have been determined by a lot of factors (including e.g. sounds, smells, temperature etc. - and even some personal factors) <strong>but</strong> you can only convey that feeling by means of a 2D image. If you captured absolutely everything you saw, that may be too much and not enough at the same time, and fail to convey what you felt.<br>

In my opinion, the key is selecting the minimum of elements that can render in 2D the most of what you felt. This means eliminating elements that are more "noise" than "usefull information" (distracting from your core message), and possibly including elements that don't seem usefull <em>per se</em> but might provide a substitute/suggestion for non-visual elements that contributed to your original emotion (e.g. suggesting wind or heat etc.).<br>

The picture is "not boring" if you managed to capture all the <em>ingredients</em> (and nothing more) required to <em>recreate </em> your original emotion for another person. But another person may have different sensibility/taste/perception than you. Use of generally recognized symbols can help here.<br>

Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>Thanks everybody! Your replies are very useful.<br /> <br /> I'm aware that the 105/2.8 VR doesn't have the reach, flexibility and (probably) IQ of the 70-200/2.8 Nikkor, but as a short telephoto lens I consider it as <em>a step towards</em> a true fast telephoto. For good light I have the 70-300/4.5-5.6 which I'm quite happy with.<br /> <br /> A 70-200/2.8 Nikkor is on my wishlist, but first I have to see if my skills are worth Euro 2,500 (for the new version). And if/when I'll get the 70-200/2.8, the 100/2.8 will not suddenly become useless, but remain a very good macro <em>and</em> a fast prime covering a very usefull focal length for me.<br /> <br /> I'm not into portrait, but a competent lens might tempt me to try it. Who knows?<br /> <br /> Ultimately what I like about 105/2.8 is that its specs suggest that it can be a very good multi-purpose lens. And your opinions as well as most reviews suggest it is just that.<br /> <br /> @ Kevin Vollmer: A perfect example! Thanks.<br /> <br /> @ Arthur Yeo: By "action photography" I mean <em>some</em> sports and mostly street. However, "shooting my dog running and catching balls" was on my list. I guess I'll have to do this in good light only, using the 70-300 zoom.<br /> <br /> @ Rene' Villela: "I consider it to be a multi purpose lens!" is the right answer for me :)<br /> <br /> @ Frank Eleveld: "It makes a solid moderate telephoto" is enough for me and my wallet right now. <br /> <br /> @ Ilkka Nissila: Thanks for the focus limiter tip! <br /> <br /> Thanks again! Great community here on Photo.net!</p>

<p>For my D90 I currently own a set of lenses I'm very happy with: 10-24, 16-85, 70-300 (all VR) and a 50mm f/1.8 prime.<br /> I'm considering buying a Micro-Nikkor 105 f/2.8 VR for the following uses:<br /> 1 - Obviously, for getting into the macro range. <br /> 2 - As a fast prime, complementing the 50/1.8.<br /> 3 - As a short and fast telephoto for (some) action photography.<br /> <br /> My question is: does the Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 VR focus fast enough for action photography? I trust its macro capabilities and sharpness, it's fast enough for my low-light everyday needs - but will it be good for some action? <br /> <br /> I'm not a pro, just an enthousiast, but I want good glass because I will be printing up to 20" or so.<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<div></div>